Some people cite scientists saying there is a “CO2 control knob” for Earth. No doubt there is, but due to the logarithmic effect of CO2, I think of it like a fine tuning knob, not the main station tuner. That said, a new data picture is emerging of an even bigger knob and lever; a nice bright yellow one.
A few months back, I found a website from NOAA that provides an algorithm and downloadable program for spotting regime shifts in time series data. It was designed by Sergei Rodionov of the NOAA Bering Climate and Ecosystem Center for the purpose of detecting shifts in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Regime shifts are defined as rapid reorganizations of ecosystems from one relatively stable state to another. In the marine environment, regimes may last for several decades and shifts often appear to be associated with changes in the climate system. In the North Pacific, climate regimes are typically described using the concept of Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Regime shifts were also found in many other variables as demonstrated in the Data section of this website (select a variable and then click “Recent trends”).
But data is data, and the program doesn’t care if it is ecosystem data, temperature data, population data, or solar data. It just looks for and identifies abrupt changes that stabilize at a new level. For example, a useful application of the program is to look for shifts in weather data, such as that caused by the PDO. Here we can clearly see the great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77:
Another useful application is to use it to identify station moves that result in a temperature shift. It might also be applied to proxy data, such as ice core Oxygen 18 isotope data.
But the program was developed around the PDO. What drives the PDO? Many say the sun, though there are other factors too. It follows to reason then the we might be able to look for solar regime shifts in PDO driven temperature data.
Alan of AppInSys found the same application and has done just that, and the results are quite interesting. The correlation is well aligned, and it demonstrates the solar to PDO connection quite well. I’ll let him tell his story of discovery below. – Anthony
=================================
Climate Regime Shifts
The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.”
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]
Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions”
[http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”
The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.
The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998.
[http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]
(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift,
see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)
Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data
The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.
The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].
The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.
Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle
The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area.
[http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]
The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.
From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).
An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.
The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]
The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even.
[http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]
The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.
Solar Cycle 24
Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.
Climate Regime Shifts
[last update: 2010/07/04]
|
“The notion that climate variations often occur in the form of ‘‘regimes’’ began to become appreciated in the 1990s. This paradigm was inspired in large part by the rapid change of the North Pacific climate around 1977 [e.g., Kerr, 1992] and the identification of other abrupt shifts in association with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) [Mantua et al., 1997].” [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf]
|
|
Pacific Regime Shifts
Hare and Mantua, 2000 (“Empirical evidence for North Pacific regime shifts in 1977 and 1989”): “It is now widely accepted that a climatic regime shift transpired in the North Pacific Ocean in the winter of 1976–77. This regime shift has had far reaching consequences for the large marine ecosystems of the North Pacific. Despite the strength and scope of the changes initiated by the shift, it was 10–15 years before it was fully recognized. Subsequent research has suggested that this event was not unique in the historical record but merely the latest in a succession of climatic regime shifts. In this study, we assembled 100 environmental time series, 31 climatic and 69 biological, to determine if there is evidence for common regime signals in the 1965–1997 period of record. Our analysis reproduces previously documented features of the 1977 regime shift, and identifies a further shift in 1989 in some components of the North Pacific ecosystem. The 1989 changes were neither as pervasive as the 1977 changes nor did they signal a simple return to pre-1977 conditions.” [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7B-41FTS3S-2…]
Overland et al “North Pacific regime shifts: Definitions, issues and recent transitions” [http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf]: “climate variables for the North Pacific display shifts near 1977, 1989 and 1998.”
The following figure from the above paper show analysis of PDO and Victoria Index using the Rodionov regime detection algorithm. A regime shift is also detected around 1947-48.
The following figure shows regime shift detection for the summer PDO, showing shifts at 1948, 1976 and 1998. [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/data/Images/PDOs_FigRegime.html]
(For detailed information on the 1976/77 climate shift, see: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/The1976-78ClimateShift.htm)
|
|
Regime Shift Detection in Annual Temperature Anomaly Data
The NOAA Bering Climate web site provides the algorithm for regime shift detection developed by Sergei Rodionov [http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/index.html]. The following analyses use the Excel VBA regime change algorithm version 3.2 from this web site.
The following figure shows the regime analysis of the HadCRUT3 annual global annual average temperature anomaly data from the Met Office Hadley Centre for 1895 to 2009 [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual].
The analysis was run based on the mean using a significance level of 0.1, cut-off length of 10 and Huber weight parameter of 2 using red noise IP4 subsample size 6. Regime changes are identified in 1902, 1914, 1926, 1937, 1946, 1957, 1977, 1987, and 1997. Running the analysis based on the variance rather than the mean results in regime changes in the bold years listed above.
|
|
Regime Shift Relationship to Solar Cycle
The NASA Solar Physics web site provides the following figure showing sunspot area. [http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml]
The following figure compares the Hadley (HadCrut3) monthly global average temperature (from [http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/]) overlaid with the regime change line (red line) shown previously, along with the sunspot area since 1900. The sunspot cycle is approximately 11 years. The sun’s magnetic field reverses with each sunspot cycle and thus after two sunspot cycles the magnetic field has completed a cycle – a Hale Cycle – and is back to where it started. Thus a complete magnetic sunspot cycle is approximately 22 years. The figure marks the onset of odd-numbered cycles with a vertical red line, even-numbered cycles with a green line.
From the figure above it can be seen that the regime changes correspond to the onset of solar cycles and occur when the “butterfly” is at its widest. The most significant warming regime shifts occur at the start of odd-numbered cycles (1937, 1957, 1977, 1997). Each odd-numbered cycle (red lines above) has resulted in a temperature-increase regime shift. Even-numbered cycles (green lines above) have been inconsistent, with some resulting in temperature-decrease regime shifts (1902, 1946) or minor temperature-increase shifts (1926, 1987).
An unusual one is the 1957 – 1966 cycle, which in the monthly data shown above visually looks like a temperature-increase shift in 1957 followed by a temperature-decrease shift in 1964 but the regime detection algorithm did not identify it. This is likely due to the use of annually averaged data in the regime detection algorithm.
The following figure shows the relative polarity of the Sun’s magnetic poles for recent sunspot cycles along with the solar magnetic flux [www.bu.edu/csp/nas/IHY_MagField.ppt]. The regime change periods are highlighted by the red and green boxes. Each one occurs on as the solar cycle is accelerating. The onset of an odd-numbered sunspot cycle (1977-78, 1997-98) results in the relative alignment of the Earth’s and the Sun’s magnetic fields (positive North pole on the Sun) allowing greater penetration of the geomagnetic storms into the Earth’s atmosphere. “Twenty times more solar particles cross the Earth’s leaky magnetic shield when the sun’s magnetic field is aligned with that of the Earth compared to when the two magnetic fields are oppositely directed” [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/news/themis_leaky_shield.html]
The following figure shows the longitudinally averaged solar magnetic field. This “magnetic butterfly diagram” shows that the sunspots are involved with transporting the field in its reversal. The Earth’s temperature regime shifts are indicated with the superimposed boxes – red on odd numbered solar cycles, green on even. [http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2010-1&page=articlesu8.html]
The Earth’s temperature regime shift occurs as the solar magnetic field begins its reversal.
|
|
Solar Cycle 24
Solar cycle 24 is in its initial stage after getting off to a late start. An El Nino occurred in the first part of 2010. This may be the start of the next regime shift.
|
@ur momisugly Steve Mosher
Without a mechanism, there is no IDEA to throw out, there is only this: a mere speculation about numbers.
Are you thus elevating “Argumentum ad ignorantium” to the status of a law of science?
In a chaotic-nonlinear system, rejecting a corellation based hypothesis on the basis of incomplete knowledge of mechanism is even more risky and challenging.
As mentioned above, reductionist fixation on mechanism can lead to the related epistemological disorder, “argumentum ignarus res” or argument in defiancce of facts. In this pathology, so much faith is placed in a mechanism (and in the simplicity of the mechanism’s opeation in the real world) that an ensuing hypothesis is stubbornly believed in spite of substantial evidence to the contrary. CAGW is a good example of this.
@ur momisugly idlex
I agree with your point about heating probably not being the predominant interaction (although if it was it would completely negate CAGW :-). I’m discussing this in an arm-waving way, I’m not as well acquainted with the physics of IR photons and CO2 as I am with x-rays and photoelectric absorption / Compton scattering.
One point I wanted to make however was that CAGW theorists cannot “have their cake and eat it”. You cant have both absorption / re-emission and heating, due to energy conservation. If (hypothetically) the (CO2 band) IR interactions were all of the type that deposit heat energy, then it has been shown (sorry no reference!) that this CO2 absorbed IR would not penetrate more than 10 m through air. Due to the IR photon energy not being infinite.
But if the interaction is instead absorption followed by re-emission at the same energy (I haven’t yet checked if this is possible) which we could abbreviate rather loosely as diffusion, then the IR photon keeps its energy after millions of interactions; however it cant heat anything. You cant take heat energy from the IR photon and have your photon continuing to propagate.
The paramecium analogy, together with the atmosphere’s spherical geometry as mentioned by tallbloke and others, means that IR diffusive radiation will be more up than down. (I’m puzzled by how CAGW proponents try o argue the reverse).
Alan Cheetham says:
July 5, 2010 at 1:03 pm
Leif (12:07): If you think the Wu et al study is invalid, state why.
I think I already did. To state that a single year [1997] in the short interval 1994-2002 is ‘unusual’ is perhaps a misunderstanding of what ‘unusual’ means. You can only claim this on the basis of a much longer time base. Perhaps the real problem is not Wu et al. but you who boldened their statement and thereby made it stronger than what they meant, which was that 1997 was higher than any other of the other nine years 1994-2002. If that had been the past 50 years or so, that would have been ‘unusual’.
James F. Evans says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“The past ten years have been the warmest recorded…”
In your opinion. There is a lot of data that contradicts that assertion.
Like this from Dr. Spencer: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/june-2010-temperature-cooling-a-bit-as-el-nino-fades/
Most of us, here, were smart enough
Pardon my observation, but you don’t come across like that. Hide it too well.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
angaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet
A prerequisite for reasonable discussion is that you get your facts straight, which this plot http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif shows you have not.
The rest of your post is just rambling. Including this gem:
The reason there has been a growing discrepancy between the F10.7 flux and sunspot numbers snce the 90′s is because they are not linearly correlated
They do not need to be linearly correlated [which indeed they are not] as long as they are correlated with a suitable non-linear function. The number 1, 2, 3, 4, etc and their squares 1, 4, 9, 16, etc are not linearly correlated, yet have a perfect correlation [through the function y = x^2].
Steven mosher says:
July 5, 2010 at 4:29 pm
For people to have a reasonable discussion the first prerequisites would be a clear statement of the issue. “the sun got really active” is not a clear statement. the sun got “quiet” is not a clear statement. When we look at our understanding of how the Sun provides energy to the earth that clear understanding is reflected in TSI data.
The units are kw/sqmeter. Think on that.
Hi Steven,
as Jack Eddy knew, and as Anthony posted here a while back, the relationsip between the suns energies (plural) is very very very complex. The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’ is an attempt to provide a simple metric we can use in calculations but it has the unfortunate side effect of limiting the terms of debate when people of a reductionist bent try to impose it as the sole or sufficient metric in framing the debate about the sun-earth relationship. It is a useful tool in the scientists toolbox, but not a complete answer to understanding.
This is why I choose deliberately vague terms like ‘more active’ and ‘quieter’ etc. It is in recognition of the fact that we don’t yet understand the effect of the sun’s various energies (the quantities of which vary semi-independently). But although we don’t yet understand their effects sufficiently to quantify and provide fully explained mechanisms, we do have empirical observations which show that the sun’s energies (plural) affect the climate in various ways not reflected by a simple single metric which only accounts for Watts or Joules of energy per area. There are chemical interactions in the atmosphere. There are biotic effects on photosynthesis which in turn affect the oceans opacity etc etc.
So in summary, I’m grateful to Leif and his colleagues for providing a useful metric which has limited application in understanding the sun-earth relationship, but I will fight tooth and nail against attempts to limit the terms of the debate solely to this single metric. The various solar wavelengths have different effects on different parts of the earth’s climate system. Then there is the solar wind and it’s various particle types to consider too.
There are no simple answers to any questions about climate. Climate is complex, and hypotheses about what might be important cannot be ruled in or out on the basis of simple metrics which don’t tell the whole story about the phenomena they lump together in order to quantify.
The elephants missing from the room:
What is the physical basis for the averaging treatment of temperature?
What is the physical mechanism for the effect of these regime changes on this average?
What are the pitfalls of this analysis? I am sure the author does not claim it is perfect, so what are the weaknesses? If it is perfect, why is it?
Otherwise, this entire conversation is raising the bush by lowering its surroundings.
tallbloke said:
“And I’ve responded to your posts. None of the big hitters have though. We’ll have a nip of grog and sing some shanties to while away the loneliness.”
Yes you have and I’m grateful for that.
Leif has responded elsewhere but cannot accept solar changes having any effect on the upward energy flux although he did refer me to a link which supports a possible mechanism.
Bob Tisdale has responded elsewhere but objects to my suggestion that PDO is caused by influences other than ENSO and I think you have crossed swords with him on that same point.
All I can do is keep pointing out the validity of my suggestions as more data comes in over time. There is insufficient historical data of the right kind to provide evidence to the required scientific standard at present but it sure as hell fits what we see on an ongoing basis and lots of papers are coming out that are consistent with my ideas.
If ongoing observations suddenly go well adrift of what I would expect without a good reason then and only then would I desist.
I’m currently watching out to see if the polar oscillations are capable of going heavily positive with poleward shifting jets in the absence of either or both of a positive PDO and a more active solar surface. That would be the most obvious falsification of what I say though there are also other possible falsifications such as the stratosphere going back to a cooling mode whilst the solar surface remains quiet.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 5, 2010 at 10:03 pm
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 2:24 pm
engaged in a reasonable discussion about how it is ocean heat content has been rising since the fifties when the sun got really active, and started dropping again when it got quiet
A prerequisite for reasonable discussion is that you get your facts straight, which this plot http://i48.tinypic.com/14e6wjn.gif shows you have not.
Wash your windows Leif, the corrected version in that blinkometer shows exactly what I said. The OHC has been falling since 2003, the peak of solar cycle 23, just as I told you.
The vertical axis of the graph you present is labelled as “heat content”, but since it starts in 1955 at -3×10^22J I would guess (though I really shouldn’t have to) that the axis really represents “heat content anomaly”. After all, the ocean can’t contain a negative amount of heat can it?
But how is it decided where the zero line of the ‘anomaly’ is? Anomalous relative to what?
Another question it would be nice to have an answer to is what the total ocean ‘heat’ content is. Then we could get some idea of how much it has heated up in percentage terms over the period of record. If we make the assumption that heat content is related to sea surface temperature, and take the SST at some arbitrary time to be the ideal climate temperature that fluctuations from are to be regarded as ‘anomalies’, then we can see how much things have warmed up.
Let’s say we take the zero line of HADcru’s SST’s, which match dates around 1940 and 1980. According to their measurements, the ocean surface has warmed about 0.3C from there to the peak of global warming. The average SST is around 17C or 289K. So taking a roughly linear dropoff in temperature down to the thermocline, we get an approx 0.15K warming of the upper 700m of the worlds oceans on average.
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:25 pm
The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’
You do not understand [or you ignore or downplay] that just about every solar indicator correlates [or anti-correlates] with TSI [except the temperature of the quiet sun which is constant] so that single metric incorporates all the other things. We use TSI as the benchmark mainly because that is where the energy is [the others are many orders of magnitudes smaller]. The only solar indicator where we have actually found a climate effect is for TSI: The solar variation in TSI causes a ~0.1K variation in temperature [I think everyone in the field agrees with that]. You took Jack Eddy’s name in vain, but even he argued in his seminal papers that a variation of TSI was the likely cause of climate variation. He later [e.g at Dinner Speech at SORCE 2003 http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/news/sns/2003/sns_dec_2003.pdf ] realized that TSI did not vary enough and that there simply was not enough variation in the incoming energy to account for significant climate change.
Hi Tallbloke
“Hi Steven,
as Jack Eddy knew, and as Anthony posted here a while back, the relationsip between the suns energies (plural) is very very very complex. The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’ is an attempt to provide a simple metric we can use in calculations but it has the unfortunate side effect of limiting the terms of debate when people of a reductionist bent try to impose it as the sole or sufficient metric in framing the debate about the sun-earth relationship. It is a useful tool in the scientists toolbox, but not a complete answer to understanding.”
I’m not convinced it’s as complex as you assume. I don’t see anything I said as limiting debate. I am merely pointing this out. When you have term like TSI expressed in watts on the left hand side the hopes of having a right hand side of the equation with the proper terms is greatly increased. But if you start with something like “number of sun spots” on the left, you can see what a challenge this will be to get the right hand side to work out. What’s missing is the MECHANISM.. that thing which will turn “numbers of spots” ( in reality nothing more than a COUNTING convention) into a measure of temperature. The KEY is being able to put your ideas into a TESTABLE equation. That means numbers. That means units. All else is arm waving. Science is REDUCTIONIST in its very structure as we attempt to REDUCE complex data into a form that is expressable by equations that quantify over physical entities.
“This is why I choose deliberately vague terms like ‘more active’ and ‘quieter’ etc. It is in recognition of the fact that we don’t yet understand the effect of the sun’s various energies (the quantities of which vary semi-independently). But although we don’t yet understand their effects sufficiently to quantify and provide fully explained mechanisms, we do have empirical observations which show that the sun’s energies (plural) affect the climate in various ways not reflected by a simple single metric which only accounts for Watts or Joules of energy per area. There are chemical interactions in the atmosphere. There are biotic effects on photosynthesis which in turn affect the oceans opacity etc etc.”
No empirical OBSERVATION can SHOW how the suns “energies” “affect” the climate. Causation is never OBSERVED. causation is hypothesized to explain the observations. Chemical “intereactions” and “biotic” effects are likewise vague.
Now, I’m not EXCLUDING other effects the radiation from the sun might have.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that those arguments need to be made clearly, precisely, with equations. And yes terms should balance. no magical transformations of meters per second into joules.
“So in summary, I’m grateful to Leif and his colleagues for providing a useful metric which has limited application in understanding the sun-earth relationship, but I will fight tooth and nail against attempts to limit the terms of the debate solely to this single metric. The various solar wavelengths have different effects on different parts of the earth’s climate system. Then there is the solar wind and it’s various particle types to consider too.”
Very simply. If you don’t provide clear exposition there is no “debate” there are just two people talking at cross purposes. One requesting clarity and equations so that science can be done and the other objecting to the scientific method. that’s not a debate. What is the solar wind?
“There are no simple answers to any questions about climate. Climate is complex, and hypotheses about what might be important cannot be ruled in or out on the basis of simple metrics which don’t tell the whole story about the phenomena they lump together in order to quantify.”
I’m not ruling out ANY hypothesis you have offerred. I can’t. you havent offered a hypothesis. You’ve offered up a platitude. Climate is complex. we can’t rule out many things about the sun. Here is the point. You actually have to articulate a position so that we can decide to rule it IN or rule it OUT. Your position amounts to this. We can’t rule out ^%**t%^*G^ about the sun. Well, of course not. We can’t rule it out because you haven’t said anything. You’ve merely said, that something could be said.
Write the equations. Predict some outcomes. That’s sciencing.
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Wash your windows Leif, the corrected version in that blinkometer shows exactly what I said. The OHC has been falling since 2003, the peak of solar cycle 23, just as I told you.
The peak was in 2000. And you are just looking at minor wiggles. And the minimum since 1955 was at solar max year 1969. And then there is the tired old fact that OHC increased all the while solar activity was decreasing from 1980 on.
The vertical axis of the graph you present is labelled as “heat content”, but since it starts in 1955 at -3×10^22J I would guess (though I really shouldn’t have to) that the axis really represents “heat content anomaly”. After all, the ocean can’t contain a negative amount of heat can it?
But how is it decided where the zero line of the ‘anomaly’ is? Anomalous relative to what? read more here [where you have posted without worry]:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/05/more-on-ocean-heat-content-and-recent-revisions-to-the-data/
Another question it would be nice to have an answer to is what the total ocean ‘heat’ content is.
This was also discussed and links given for the worriers.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.
Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.
And all the sudden, good ole TSI is good enough for your calculation…
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:03 am (Edit)
tallbloke says:
July 5, 2010 at 11:25 pm
The reductionist attempt to describe the suns outputs (plural) solely in terms of a single metric ‘TSI’
You do not understand [or you ignore or downplay] that just about every solar indicator correlates [or anti-correlates] with TSI [except the temperature of the quiet sun which is constant] so that single metric incorporates all the other things.
No it doesn’t. UV has fluctuated significantly compared to the TSI and UV has important effects on the upper atmosphere chemically, and on the sea surface biota chemically. It’s not a matter of simple wattage. We don’t yet know how important (or not) these factors are, but anything which affects ozone production changes the greenhouse scenario, and anything which affects the opacity of the sea surface changes the OHC scenario.
Also, the solar wind varies anomalously with respect to TSI, and empirical evidence shows that the air temperature is affected by the speed of the solar wind.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:21 am (Edit)
Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.
Your refusal to engage with simple maths is duly noted. It’s the usual copout. You know you’re cornered with this simple calculation, and I expect the ducking and weaving to continue indefinitely.
And all the sudden, good ole TSI is good enough for your calculation…
Like I said, although it’s not the whole biscuit, it’s a useful tool in the box and I’m grateful to those who provide the metric.
Stephen Wilde said
“All I can do is keep pointing out the validity of my suggestions as more data comes in over time. There is insufficient historical data of the right kind to provide evidence to the required scientific standard at present but it sure as hell fits what we see on an ongoing basis and lots of papers are coming out that are consistent with my ideas.”
Have you got a succinct definitive post/article on your idea that you can point me towards?
tonyb
Steven mosher says:
July 6, 2010 at 12:09 am
Hi Tallbloke
Now, I’m not EXCLUDING other effects the radiation from the sun might have.
Not at all. What I’m saying is that those arguments need to be made clearly, precisely, with equations. And yes terms should balance. no magical transformations of meters per second into joules.
Write the equations. Predict some outcomes. That’s sciencing.
Sure, I just did that and got stonewalled by Mr quantitative scientist. He could have said, well, the TSI variation over the 1940-2003 period was this, so it will affect your calculation by that. Look at what I got instead:
“Since your ‘calculation’ doesn’t make sense as it does not use the same time intervals for your various inputs, it cannot be corrected, so you will [again] learn nothing.”
“Cannot be corrected”. Really???
Here it is again, I even put a question mark by the TSI figure to invite correction from his nibs:
“Let’s say we take the zero line of HADcru’s SST’s, which match dates around 1940 and 1980. According to their measurements, the ocean surface has warmed about 0.3C from there to the peak of global warming around 2000. The average SST is around 17C or 289K. So taking a roughly linear dropoff in temperature down to the thermocline, we get an approx 0.15K warming of the upper 700m of the worlds oceans on average.
TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.
It’s so simple I must have made a big mistake somewhere, so please correct me, I’m always ready to learn.”
“Have you got a succinct definitive post/article on your idea that you can point me towards?
tonyb”
Here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/#comments
tallbloke said:
“TSI varies around 0.1% over the solar cycle, and maybe by around that over the 1930-2000 period? And it is amplified at the surface by a drop in cloud cover from 1980-1998 according to ISCCP data. Those empirical observations are backed up by Nir Shaviv’s work on using the oceans as a colorimeter.
0.15K is approximately 0.05% of 289K
There’s your solar/albedo caused global warming.”
I like that approach in that it seeks to link the tiny variations in solar output to similarly tiny changes in ocean energy content that then have an apparently disproportionately large effect on observed climate.
I think that the apparent ‘disproportionality’ is simply a function of our smallness in the scheme of things combined with the huge scale of the difference in the energy carrying properties of oceans and air.
A tiny change in the rate of oceanic energy release will put a substantial poleward pressure on the air circulation system thus causing latitudinal climate shifts that result in substantial (from our puny perspective) changes in day to day weather in the regions below that have changed their positions relative to the nearest components of the air circulation system.
However I do have a concern about the lack of correlations over individual solar cycles but that can adequately be dealt with by oceanic lag times and the time it takes for the air circulation to respond to changes in rates of energy release from the oceans.
The pattern is in my opinion very clear on 500 year timescales, reasonably clear on multidecadal timescales over 30 years but obscured by internal system noise and lag times on lesser timescales.
Nor is the pattern solely ocean regulated because the response of the air to an oceanic warming or cooling lacks consistency in terms of scale hence the need to introduce another influence from above that sometimes supplements and sometimes opposes the oceanic effect on the air circulation.
The only way that the pressure distribution in the troposphere can be altered from above is via changes in the intensity of the inversion at the tropopause and that is a consequence of changes in stratospheric temperatures.
Thus what we need is any solar effect that is capable of affecting stratospheric temperatures in the required direction i.e. we need a cooling stratosphere to induce poleward shifts in the jets and a warming stratosphere to induce an equatorward movement.
The trouble is that that is the opposite of what we normally expect. A more active sun should warm the stratosphere but in fact it seems that it does not. To explain stratospheric cooling when the sun is more active as during the late 20th century one has to propose a non natural cause reversing the expected ‘natural’ warming. Thus the concern about CFCs destroying ozone and the idea that CO2 was reducing the energy flow from troposphere to stratosphere.
Logic is forcing me to question both scenarios and the climate feature that is most significant is that latitudinal shift in all the air circulation systems beyond normal seasonal variability.
Unless that major cyclical feature is explained then no climate hypothesis or any climate model has any validity. I think I am the first to try to work it into a coherent overview
phlogiston
One point I wanted to make however was that CAGW theorists cannot “have their cake and eat it”. You cant have both absorption / re-emission and heating, due to energy conservation.
Not from the same photon, for sure.
I’ve simply been reporting what I’ve read – which always seems to describe the interaction of photons and CO2 as one of absorption and re-emission. It doesn’t seem implausible to me that one photon might be absorbed and re-emitted, and another photon might have a heating effect. It’s just that what I’ve been reading seems to say that there’s just one interaction, not two. Nevertheless other people (perhaps even most people) speak of IR emitted by the earth’s surface being absorbed in the atmosphere and “warming” it.
Maybe I should go ask the guys over at Realclimate. After all, they’re the ones who think something like this is happening. Does Realclimate have a fundamental physics section that explains IR interaction with CO2?
Stephen Wilde
Thanks for the link. I have read the article and it all sounds common sense. Personally I think we know far far less about the climate than we believe we do.
Your suggestion #21 from that thread was of particular interest as I am currently researching an article on the LIA as evidenced by instrumental records backed up by contemporary observations.
There is no doubt that the period 1650 to 1698 was generally cold but even then there were some notably warm periods. In the succeeding years, particularly the 30 year period from 1700, there was notable warmth and a substantial ‘bounce’ of temperatures thereon from warm to cold and back again. The term LIA is misleading after 1698-the cold really became interludes rather than remained an ‘age.’
Does your theory presuppose a continually cold period or can it accommodate an era when the temperatures ‘bounced around’ and showed great variabilty, although in general winters became warmer?
tonyb
Stephen Wilde wrote: “Bob Tisdale has responded elsewhere but objects to my suggestion that PDO is caused by influences other than ENSO…”
Of course the PDO is influenced by variables other than ENSO. You’re either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I’ve written to you and posted on in the past. I’ve shown that the difference between the PDO and ENSO is likely caused by variations in Sea Level Pressure in the form of the North Pacific Index (NPI):
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-difference-between-nino34-sst.html
And due to gyre spin-up and the multiyear persistence of SST anomalies in the Kuroshio Extension, it is likely aerosols from explosive volcanic eruptions also influence the PDO.
And let me clarify my reply since you bounce between uses of the PDO. This response assumes you’re referring to the PDO as the pattern of North Pacific SST anomalies, north of 20N, the widely accepted definition, and not a generic basin-wide phenomenon.
Alan Cheetham you replied, “There is also a (approx.) 60-year cycle with as yet unknown cause. When the even-numbered cycles are on a descending part of the 60-year cycle they cause a temperature decrease.”
The assumption you’re making is that the (approx.) 60-year cycle persists back in time beyond the instrument temperature record. Paleoclimatological reconstructions of the AMO suggest it does not:
http://i47.tinypic.com/ekkhuc.png
From this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-index.html
Steve Mosher July 6, 2010 at 12:09 am
When you have term like TSI expressed in watts on the left hand side the hopes of having a right hand side of the equation with the proper terms is greatly increased. But if you start with something like “number of sun spots” on the left, you can see what a challenge this will be to get the right hand side to work out. What’s missing is the MECHANISM.. that thing which will turn “numbers of spots” ( in reality nothing more than a COUNTING convention) into a measure of temperature. The KEY is being able to put your ideas into a TESTABLE equation. That means numbers. That means units. All else is arm waving. Science is REDUCTIONIST in its very structure as we attempt to REDUCE complex data into a form that is expressable by equations that quantify over physical entities
Rather a lot of “science” these days seems to be missing the mechanism. Event A takes place, followed by event B, and next thing you know A is said to cause B, even though the causal mechanism is not understood.
AGW seems to be a bit like this. CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing, and the earth’s temperature has been increasing too, so one “causes” the other. But what’s the mechanism? To their credit they have a candidate mechanism, which is that CO2 absorbs IR emitted from the surface of the earth and re-emits it back (the subject of the side discussion I’ve been having here). But the mechanism is disputed.
A lot of modern epidemiology seems to be the same. e.g. smoking “causes” lung cancer. But the causal mechanism is vague, and disputed. Similarly obesity “causes” premature death. And so on. In many cases no mechanism at all is suggested.
“Science” of this sort might be said to be incomplete. It’s not good, solid science that you can use as the bricks and mortar to build further science. It’s a kind of science that’s still waiting for its mechanism to be added. It’s science which requires a leap of faith that the mechanism will be discovered one day. And the longer this faith is needed, the deeper that faith must be. And this is how you get “true believers” of one sort or other. They are people who have been waiting a very, very long time for the missing mechanism to show up, and most likely it never will.
And since we seem to have more and more of this sort of incomplete “science”, we have more and more true believers in all sorts of things.
idlex: Furthermore, I’m not sure whether the absorption of a photon results in a rise in temperature.
My strictly casual understanding was that a collision following a photon absorption (before the molecule has had time to emit) redistributes the absorbed energy as kinetic energy amongst the colliding molecules. So if this is the case, collision before emission increases the temperature of the gas.
I also seem to remember reading that lab experiments by Neils Bohr determined that the vibrational energy of the molecule doesn’t increase after photon absorption, rather the internal energy is altered by a change in electron levels, which is reset once a photon is absorbed.
I may be mistaken – I don’t have a reference either, so perhaps collisions have no effect in this regard and the absorbed energy is retained across collisions.
If anyone has a link to the standard texts or reference material covering these questions, I’d be very grateful. I’ll have a look in the Britannica this evening.
My last post contained at least one error:
“which is reset once a photon is absorbed”
should be
“which is reset once a photon is emitted”
tallbloke replied, “I’m not sure where you’re going with that one either, do you think those factors and nothing else account for the variability of the OHC anomalies of the Atlantic over the period of record?”
No, I don’t think the factors I wrote and nothing else account for the variability of OHC anomalies of the North Atlantic. As you are aware, the South Atlantic is the only basin where heat transport is from the pole to the tropics, so the North Atlantic OHC is impacted by the South Atlantic OHC. North Atlantic also has exaggerated Cloud Amount anomalies variations.
http://i50.tinypic.com/294ihsk.jpg
But the 2005 peak of North Atlantic OHC appears to coincide with the peak of the North Atlantic SST anomalies, and in turn the peak of the AMO, which is why I would attribute the recent decline in North Atlantic OHC to AMO/AMOC.
And other than the variables I’ve listed so far, what other factors are you suggesting account for the variations in North Atlantic OHC?